D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Spastik]

Absolutely correct, when the animal form drops to 0 not druid who still has hp. Read the words slowly that are in sage advice that clear it up. When the DRUID has 0 hp (not animal form) he turns to dust. How can you not see the differentiation between Druid hp and animal form hp? It’s literally been cleared up on numerous links and quotes for you and is in print. Again, I’ll take the word of the game designer over you.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely correct, when the animal form drops to 0 not druid who still has hp. Read the words slowly that are in sage advice that clear it up. When the DRUID has 0 hp (not animal form) he turns to dust. How can you not see the differentiation between Druid hp and animal form hp? It’s literally been cleared up on numerous links and quotes for you and is in print. Again, I’ll take the word of the game designer over you.

So the animal form turns to dust at 0 then, right?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=6943386]Spastik[/MENTION], since you say you will take the word of the game designer over me, here it is.

"Q:What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form?

A:The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points.

That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points."

If you didn't lie, your next post will be to agree that the druid turns to dust.

 

[epithet]

I think we're missing a step in this logical dance here.

Why does anyone care about a literal interpretation of the rules, if it is contrary to the intent of the designers and adds an unplanned vulnerability to the primary feature of a class archetype?

Yes, fine, you and Jeremy agree on the "literal interpretation" thing. It's not what they meant, it's not how you should rule at the table, so what exactly is this argument about?

 

[Maxperson]

Why does anyone care about a literal interpretation of the rules, if it is contrary to the intent of the designers and adds an unplanned vulnerability to the primary feature of a class archetype?

Because most people aren't going to know about the errata. They are simply going to play the game as written. As an additional reason, intent is not not always the best way to play something.

Yes, fine, you and Jeremy agree on the "literal interpretation" thing. It's not what they meant, it's not how you should rule at the table, so what exactly is this argument about?

It's blatantly wrong to say that it's not how I should rule at the table, or how anyone should rule for that matter. Saying that people shouldn't rule that way is saying that people should never create a house rule, since those rules are contrary to design intent.

Feel free to house rule the ability to conform with the design intent, but you really shouldn't be claiming it as the One True Way like that.

 

[epithet]

Because most people aren't going to know about the errata. They are simply going to play the game as written. As an additional reason, intent is not not always the best way to play something.


It's blatantly wrong to say that it's not how I should rule at the table, or how anyone should rule for that matter. Saying that people shouldn't rule that way is saying that people should never create a house rule, since those rules are contrary to design intent.

Feel free to house rule the ability to conform with the design intent, but you really shouldn't be claiming it as the One True Way like that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't rule that way because it is contrary to design intent. I'm all for throwing the intent, and even the rules, right out the window if you've got a better idea. Make all the house rules you want, I sure as hell do.

No, I'm saying you shouldn't rule that way because it is taking a class strength and turning into a stupid nonsensical vulnerability, thereby killing a character based on a technicality. To kill a character based on a "literal" reading of a rule in clear, knowing contravention of the intent of that rule is asinine, and if you do it you should feel bad about it. Unless, as I said upthread, your players have signed up for a meat grinder experience and know ahead of time that you're going to kill their characters... then feel free to use "rocks fall, you die" rule interpretations.

I'll go one further, in fact: Jeremy Crawford was wrong to delete his tweet interpreting the rule according to its intent, and to post an "official" interpretation supporting the "literal reading." If the book came out with wording for a spell or class ability that contravenes the designer's intent, and that contravention will cause player characters to be killed in the most difficult to undo way they can be killed, then they should have issued errata to correct the rule in the book. It might not be such a big deal, really, since one might expect a DM to simply rule the way it was meant to work (that being the reasonable reading,) but no... there are clearly plenty of folks who get all exercised over the "literal" reading, reason be damned, so it should have been corrected.

I remember this argument from back when the thread was young, Max. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you admitted back then that you wouldn't rip up someone's character sheet over a technicality, a mis-statement of the intended rule. I really do not understand why you have anointed yourself the champion of the literal rule, but regardless... I have no hesitation in saying that the literal interpretation, as described by Jeremy Crawford, is bad wrong (un)fun.

(Unless you get all the players to agree to that sort of thing in advance.)

 

[epithet]

Also, let's clear up some terminology: if the designers say "it was intended to work this way" (which both Crawford and Mearls have done on this issue) and you rule, at your table, that it works the way that the designers intended, you're not creating a "house rule." You cannot, as you put it "house rule the ability to conform with design intent." That's just not what a house rule is.

Both a literal reading and the intended interpretation are faithful to the published rule. Neither one is making up your own rule. By dismissing the intended interpretation of a rule in the book as a "house rule," you are making your own "One True Way" assertion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I do think there is a bit of mischievous deliberate miss-reading going on here.

Such as deliberately OVERLOOKING certain phrases: "You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points or die". The key word here is automatically. This implies that reversion cannot be prevented, disrupted, or interrupted. I.e. the instant the animal form hits zero you revert to human form and are no longer on zero hp. Then the residual damage is applied.

The wording of the Disintegrate spell is "the target takes 10d6+40 force damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points the target is disintegrated". "If" in this case implies that the check for zero hp applies after the whole of the damage has been applied. Not part way through.

Thus there is no conflict between RAW and RAI: In both cases the druid can only be disintegrated by reducing them to 0 hp in their natural form.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thus there is no conflict between RAW and RAI: In both cases the druid can only be disintegrated by reducing them to 0 hp in their natural form.

Sigh. Crawford has gone on record to say the whole druid and not just his wildshape is disintegrated per RAW but not RAI.

What is there left to argue about?

Choose RAW or RAI and feel good about your choice. End of story.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sigh. Crawford has gone on record to say the whole druid and not just his wildshape is disintegrated per RAW but not RAI.

What is there left to argue about?

Choose RAW or RAI and feel good about your choice. End of story.

Crawford is well qualified to rule on RAI. As an English teacher I am just as well qualified to interpret RAW. Crawford is misinterpreting RAW in this case.